Template talk:User én
I was originally going to have an implied "y" (or "j" but then what's dzh going to be) for word-initial ú's, but now I realized a few words, like "ooh", don't have it. Please give your arguments in favor of using "j" instead of "y" as it relates to the sound "dzh" ("dq" if we keep yod-coalescences being rewritten as one letter) being displaced, and what the letter "y" could be used for (doing just Greek loans (which I lean towards respelling in English spelling) like German would be silly, imo). —TimeMaster (talk • ) 19:04, February 25, 2018 (UTC) :/j/ is IPA, so it makes more sense. /dʒ/ is to be analysed as two sounds. Using "j" for the /dʒ/ sound is inconvenient, as it would require you to find yet another symbol to write plain /ʒ/ as in leisure. --OuWTB 20:01, February 25, 2018 (UTC) I mean, we have enough letters to make both dzh and tsh have their own sounds, assuming you don't count /x/ as an English sound. And they're moderately common. And even IPAists often consider affricates distinct sounds. What do you think of writing yod coalescences as two letters - that would free up the letter for /zh/, and make pairs like nation/native closer. —TimeMaster (talk • ) 20:12, February 25, 2018 (UTC) :Ai þink jú šud switš tu a speliŋ ðæt iz les modern iŋliš beizd ðou :o In ðis keis ai wud haili rekomend a speliŋ hwitš hæz its faundeišn in internæšenel fonetik ælfabet æzwel æz sym slait etimolodžikel graundz. In dhis keis juu wud oolsou bii eibl tu ripleis difikelt grafiimz widh daigraefs. :o --OuWTB 20:49, February 25, 2018 (UTC) I think I definitely support keeping long/short parts in a/á or a/aa or a/ah forms though due to trisyllabic laxing, even though at least in American accents they are effectively separate, unrelated vowels aside from that phenomenon as well as some other pairs of etymologically related words that the rule doesn't apply as well to. I'm not totally against using "ei" for á, etc. but I just don't really see the point of divorcing the pairs when we could just as easily maintain them with á. IPA is very distant from most ordinary people who often don't even realize the long I is the combination of a and i/j (in IPA). I don't really like the use of æ, as it's kind of ugly and also is unnecessary in American English, but I guess it could be necessary in accents with no Father-Bother merger. As for using the breves instead of x/q, why not just use letters we already have? —TimeMaster (talk • ) 21:14, February 25, 2018 (UTC) I do have possibilities for all graphemes to be written as digraphs (all are various possibilities, with my preference listed first): á -> aa/ah/ai/ei, é -> ee, í -> ye/ie/ii/ai, ó -> oo/ou, ú -> uu, à -> au/aw, è -> eur (nurse vowel, I'm not using it as it's not in my accent. è could also be used for Father/Bother unmerged accents perhaps), ì/ø -> oi , ò -> eu/ou/oo, ù -> ou/au. —TimeMaster (talk • ) 21:24, February 25, 2018 (UTC) It iz "fáðer" ænd "boðer" ðou; not "fæðer" :o --OuWTB 12:37, February 26, 2018 (UTC) foðer and boðer in my accent. For unmerged accent I suppose you could introduce another letter for the a in father - perhaps ä. —TimeMaster (talk • ) 13:54, February 26, 2018 (UTC) I think that ought to be written as "fáðer" and "báðer" though :o --OuWTB 09:32, February 27, 2018 (UTC) But then the trisyllabic pair with IPA æ is broken. —TimeMaster (talk • ) 15:34, February 27, 2018 (UTC) How do you explain words like "goose" - "geese", "am" - "are", "long" - "length" and "man" - "men" in your spelling in that case? :o --OuWTB 18:33, February 27, 2018 (UTC) Umlaut is muc les comon in Énglix ðan Jurman, so unfórcunatle, ðá'll hav tu be left ðat wá - lík in Modern Énglix. —TimeMaster (talk • ) 19:39, February 27, 2018 (UTC) Jór Ingliš haili iledžibl ðó :o --OuWTB 09:31, February 28, 2018 (UTC) It's signifikantle klóser tu Modern Énglix ðo. —TimeMaster (talk • ) 15:04, February 28, 2018 (UTC) Modyrn Ingliš, yspešyli its speling, saks ðou :o --OuWTB 10:04, March 1, 2018 (UTC) Néd to mák it ézéer tu tranzixon frum ðo. An Óld Énglix bást speling wòd be kyút tu ðo. —TimeMaster (talk • ) 15:35, March 1, 2018 (UTC) 1. "ézéer" luks rimarkybli agli ðou :o 2. "ézéer" is not kampätibl wið Rysívd Prynansíeišn, hwitš iz "íziy®", not "ízíyr". 3. Jór speling iz iledžibl fór non-neitiv non-ymerikyn Ingliš spíkyrs ðou :o --OuWTB 16:38, March 1, 2018 (UTC) At Wikxonare: /ˈiː.zi.ə/ in RP. :o I þink it's fín but mábe néds tu alù fór unmurjd fäðer and boðer. R's ar simple dropt in non-rótik aksents, and nurs vùel adid wer apropréat (strest eks-rótik silabels). —TimeMaster (talk • ) 17:14, March 1, 2018 (UTC) /i/ iz fonylodžik ðou, not fynetik :o Stil, jór speling agli :o --OuWTB 18:26, March 1, 2018 (UTC) I þink yór yús uv y fór shwa and a for u is muc wurs ðo. :o Anoðer possibility: Keep Jurmanic dubbel letter sistem. Shoort (short??) vowels: a for bat, e for bet, i for bit, o for bot, u for but. Long vowels: a or ai (to overried tu letters cumming after) for bait, aa for father, au for bought, e or ee for beet, i or ie for bite, o or oa (or oe??) for boat, ou or ow for bout, oo for boot, oe (??) for good, u or uu for butane (ðis is wut i'm moost unhappy wiþ). Rotics shoed probbably git sum eksepxuns (UGH. fixing yod coaslescences looks SOOOO bad and ruins everything!) liek or meening oar. —TimeMaster (talk • ) 18:58, March 1, 2018 (UTC) Short is written with "o" due to the the situation without the horse-hoarse merger: "hors" vs. "hórs" (horse vs. hoarse); "or" vs. "ór" (or vs. oar), etc. --OuWTB 11:48, March 2, 2018 (UTC) Holy shit this is an amazing system Thoughts on this? I think we are really close to something great and Dutch/German-like. Need to work on the ipa /u/ sound and the rhotics, though - ideas? —TimeMaster (talk • ) 21:31, March 1, 2018 (UTC) Just realized this loses the elegance of náxon/naxonal, damn. I guess naxon/naxxonal or naishon/nashonal will have to do? Everything is so hard to decide on! xD Yod coalescences, whether x should be kept, how to write sh and zh, how to write th and dh, how to write the difference between the sounds in Mary and mar (like in marring a transcript. need thoughts on all of these). —TimeMaster (talk • ) 22:23, March 1, 2018 (UTC) And also how to write the differences between words like "no" and "do". Noa and do, no and doo, noa and doo, noe and do, something else? Plus writing /ju/ and /u/ differently is so awkward and with a decent amount of yod dropping in all accents things get strange there. E.g. rue -> ru, roo, rue? rune -> ruen/roon? As well as if a morning/mourning division should be kept - doing so reminds me of keeping wh/hw, which I lean against. —TimeMaster (talk • ) 23:17, March 1, 2018 (UTC) How you guys working with the wholly-holy split? :o Two ways: 1. based on RP: houli vs. heuli (which requires goat to be written geut and old as ould) or 2. on phonologic level: houlli vs. houli (still gout and ould). --OuWTB 12:36, March 2, 2018 (UTC) I didn't know that existed and it seems to be London only so might just ignore. I guess maybe doubling the l? As for or/oar merger, I guess in this new system they would be written identically to the old system? Though a lot of speekrs would write them the same. —TimeMaster (talk • ) 12:53, March 2, 2018 (UTC) Mai speling ólsou ädvykeits pípl ty start ty spík Ingliš mór kyrektli än hau it šud bí prynaunst :o --OuWTB 12:56, March 2, 2018 (UTC) Btw, many languages use different spellings to split meanings while the pronunciation is the same in the standard pronunciation. Vs. Dutch: ijs "ice" - eis "demand"; rijzen "rise" - reizen "travel"; rauw "raw" - rouw "mourning" etc. I think that it's benificial to understanding written language. --OuWTB 12:58, March 2, 2018 (UTC) I find it extremely difficult to pronounce a difference between mourning and morning and o seems to describe the vowel in my "or"s and "oar"s slightly better than ɔ (it's definitely somewhere in between), so I don't know why IPA always writes it as ɔ, or I'm an unusual pronouncer even though it sounds the same as everyone else to me. ɔ seems to imply mourning shifted to morning, but the opposite (to o) seems to better describe the merger, at least in American accents. Ugh. Anyway, I think I'm leaning towards spelling oa as oe now, mostly because it makes sense with spellings like toe, because writing toa for that just doesn't really work. I suppose you could say "write oa as oe at ends of words", but idk. This means would goes from "woed" to "weud", I think. "eo" could also work. I'm also think about keeping plurals and conjugations as always s's - thoughts? As well on if "ball" should be spelled "bal" or "baal" (assume you pronounce it not as ɔ - cot/caught merger I guess. if "bal", "albert" -> "allbert"), and if bar should be spelled "bar" or "baar" (English seems to have strange but mostly consistent patterns of ær before "rr" and ar before "r" for short a's, luckily. if "bar", possibly "arab" -> "arrab" (not sure if it's ei or æ, wiktionary says both)). —TimeMaster (talk • ) 18:44, March 3, 2018 (UTC) @o: unlikely, yet it seems to occur in some Northern English varieties. @writing: shud be "tou" when using toe-tow merger. "wud", "ból", "älbyrt", "bar"/"bár" and "äryb". --OuWTB 11:36, March 5, 2018 (UTC) I meant in this digraph-based system. Main issue I'm having is the inefficiency with piener/pinner. Weird (but not so much due to them both being non-semivowel liquids) that l and r have so many exceptions for al vs æl and ar vs ær and even the sounds in bold and cord compared to hollow and borrow (in American English - but not corridor and horrible, etc. for some reason, which instead sound like cord's vowel. L seems to not share this and most -oll- are like hollow, but -ol- followed by a consonant seems to follow r's pattern of the vowel usually not being short.). —TimeMaster (talk • ) 20:41, March 5, 2018 (UTC) And on whether using Germanic double letter in loan words is worth it - creates a lot of ugliness for arbitrary and arguably wrong pronunciation. Old system was a lot better for that, and also for trisyllabic laxing. Could even drop the double letter all together and always write the digraphs, but that'd look not Germanic. —TimeMaster (talk • ) 20:42, March 5, 2018 (UTC) meet - meat - eat Should we also introduce this split? :o It cutely reflects Old English :o Although, unfortunately, only a few elderly near where Semyon cumz frum still use this, so I think it's redundant :'( --OuWTB 13:10, March 2, 2018 (UTC) I think we need to keep it simple and oriented towards standard-ish speekrs. What're your thoughts on how to write pin, pine, pinner, and piner in my new system? —TimeMaster (talk • ) 13:13, March 2, 2018 (UTC) Sí ði aðyr tókpeidž ðou :o --OuWTB 13:14, March 2, 2018 (UTC) April Over March, as you two already know I decided that oe is probably better than oa for the long o due to issues like "boa" (and if you introduce an exception for the ends of words, then you get knoe/knoas which is unacceptable). I am also starting to lean more towards ae for the long a rather than ai. Shaem/shaim (shame), maentaen/maintain. Say would probably stay say (not sae or something) but then lose the i->y pattern at the ends of words. So hard to decide! I also think /au/ should be reinstated as ue. Which means current ue must become eu/ew, which would be fine. good's vowel is opened up for ou then (perfect), and then terminal /o/ could be ow if desired. X and Q could probably should be removed altogether, and sh and zh will be used instead. Obsurvaeshon, though? Obsurvaxon would be shorter and sweeter. So hard!! —TimeMaster (talk • ) 17:07, April 2, 2018 (UTC) : :o --OuWTB 10:02, April 3, 2018 (UTC)